linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] USB: drop misleading usb_set

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 12 Dec 2022 15:14:49 +0100
From:   Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To:     Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>,
        linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: drop misleading usb_set_intfdata() kernel doc

On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 03:04:50PM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> 
> 
> On 12.12.22 14:40, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 02:27:46PM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> >> On 12.12.22 14:14, Johan Hovold wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 12:13:54PM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > 
> >>> And in this case there was also no kernel doc for usb_get_intfdata()
> >>> which is equally self documenting. Why add redundant docs for only one
> >>> of these functions?
> >>
> >> Because knowing that one of them exists makes the other much more
> >> obvious.
> > 
> > I doubt anyone finds out about this function by reading generated kernel
> > documentation. You look at a driver, grep the function and look at the
> > single-line implementation.
> 
> Look, we cannot solve the issue whether kerneldoc is a good idea
> in general here. If you want to open that can of worms on lkml,
> by all means. go for it.
> But failing that, silently eliminating it is just not nice.

It was just added. It's mostly misleading and incorrect. Hence revert,
rather than put the burden of adding proper documentation on the person
calling out the misunderstanding (which has already led to a series of
bogus patches).

> > But it was never perfectly good. It claims that a driver "should" use it,
> > when it may not need to (think simple driver using devres) and talks
> 
> If you are presented with an interface something needs to be done
> specific to that interface.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

> > about driver core resetting the pointer which is irrelevant.
> 
> But correct and topical. I am not arguing what people should or should
> mot know.

The comment is also misleading as it signals that this is something you
need to care about.

> If you just remove the last sentence, all will be well. And if you
> insist replace "should" with "can".

Since you insist, I'll just rewrite the whole thing.

Johan